Please click here to access a preview of the Guide.
We are pleased to launch the 2019 edition of our Asia Pacific Guide to Privilege.
Businesses are increasingly faced with multi-jurisdictional disputes where evidence rarely falls within the borders of a single country and complex legal privilege issues often surface when dealing with communications across multiple jurisdictions.
Compiled by our network of Herbert Smith Freehills lawyers and trusted local counsel, the updated Guide takes account of the latest developments across Asia Pacific and covers 21 jurisdictions.
Welcome to the Spring 2019 edition of our corporate crime update – our round up of developments in relation to corruption, money laundering, fraud, sanctions and related matters. Our update now covers a number of jurisdictions.
Welcome to the Winter 2019 edition of our corporate crime update – our round up of developments in relation to corruption, money laundering, fraud, sanctions and related matters. Our update now covers a number of jurisdictions.
For the full update on each jurisdiction, please click on the name of the jurisdiction below. Below we provide a brief overview of what is covered in each update.
India’s long-awaited Amended Prevention of Corruption Act 2018 came into force on 26 July. Originally proposed in 2013, the amendments introduce a new regime and highlight the emerging focus in Asia on supply-side bribery and corporate liability. Companies and businesses operating in India should familiarise themselves with the new provisions and ensure that they implement adequate compliance procedures.
Please click here for our e-bulletin which summarises the main amendments relevant to corporates.
The Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Act 2018 was passed by the Senate of Malaysia on 5 April 2018. One of the major amendments is the introduction of section 17A. Modelled on the UK Bribery Act’s corporate offence, it penalises commercial organisations for corrupt acts by associated persons, subject to a reasonable procedures defence. Continue reading
Welcome to the June 2017 edition of our corporate crime update – our round up of developments in relation to corruption, money laundering, fraud, sanctions and related matters. Our update now covers a number of jurisdictions.
Welcome to the May 2017 edition of our corporate crime update – our round up of developments in relation to corruption, money laundering, fraud, sanctions and related matters. Our update now covers a number of jurisdictions.
Our survey of the Top 150 publicly listed companies provides an insight into corporate Australia’s approach to business ethics, codes of conduct and anti-bribery policies. That approach clearly resonates with global trends, with many of the companies surveyed having an international footprint.
On 5 April 2016, The Scottish Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (“COPFS”) announced the latest resolution of a Bribery Act enforcement action against the Glasgow-based logistics company, Braid Logistics (UK) Limited. Braid agreed to pay £2.2 million pursuant to a Civil Recovery Order and accepted responsibility for contravention of sections 1 and 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 (section 7 being the so-called ‘corporate offence’ of ‘failure to prevent’ bribery).
This is the latest development in an exciting few months in anti-corruption enforcement. Earlier this year, in two eagerly anticipated judgments, the Court applied for the first time in a contested corporate case the Sentencing Council’s 2014 Definitive Guideline: Fraud, Bribery and Money Laundering Offences (the “Guideline”), and sentenced a company following a successful prosecution under section 7 of the Bribery Act. These two cases, Smith & Ouzman Limited and Sweett Group Plc, represent the first steps in building a body of much-needed experience of the Court’s approach to the Guideline, following the first DPA last year. We provide below an overview of the Braid, Smith & Ouzman and Sweett Group cases, and explain how the penalties imposed on the companies were determined.
The handling of material which is potentially subject to legal professional privilege is an important and often contentious matter in the investigations context. In a recent decision which addresses the practical aspects of evidence handling, the Divisional Court dismissed a claim that the SFO was under a duty to use independent third party IT staff to apply search terms to material in its possession in order to identify which material may be subject to legal professional privilege ("LPP"). The Court ruled that the SFO’s policy (as set out in its Operational Handbook), whereby search terms are applied by the SFO before any responsive material is then reviewed by independent counsel, was lawful.
The case (R (McKenzie) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office  EWHC 102 (Admin)) also has some read-across value for the approach adopted by other investigation agencies to potentially privileged material. In this e-bulletin we summarise the court's ruling and its implications.